Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by JHH on July 19, 2015 at 14:44

I've read the article Skip Peel provided and believe it to be pretty much on target.  The plants are very expensive and take a long time to build.  Maybe the only hope we have is a readily available feed stock of natural gas.  I've seen just a few articles in support of that notion... so for now it's only a hope.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on July 19, 2015 at 15:32

I think the economics still work for the chemical plants, new builds and expansions, excepting GTL.  That may change if crude doesn't recover by the time those plants come on line in 2018 to 2020.  Some significant number of those plants can use natural gas or naptha (from crude) as feed stock.  If the price of crude remains depressed there could be some competition between NG and naptha.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hopeful About Natural Gas on July 23, 2015 at 7:30

I have an elementary question. A few years ago I seem to recall that China, Japan and other Asian nations BOUGHT a lot of gas reserves and made long term contracts with the West. We were bidding against Russia and Iran to supply Asia with natural gas.

Were those just "paper" contracts or did the Asian investors expect to take possession of physical oil and gas. If want actual gas and not just paper contracts then how will this gas be delivered if export plants are shut down??

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JHH on July 23, 2015 at 8:32

Hopeful... i'm sort of confused too.  I know for a fact that China has a lot of money invested in U.S. minerals.  It has leased thousands of acres and has partial ownership in a number of U.S oil/gas companies.  I wonder if China is allowed to export the oil on land it owns/leases/produces... like the Permian Basin.   Or maybe China is limited to refined product exports.  On natural gas... I think the only way to export it (until other export terminals are built) is through Cheniere's export terminal in south Louisiana.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by kittycatmama on July 23, 2015 at 13:57

I remember several of the Exco wells in Desoto had TOYOG on their well signs (can't remember exact letters). Anyway I was told gas from those wells was committed to Tokyo to replace the nuclear energy lost when the Tsunami hit. I think we had this discussion on this board.

Also the Chinese were in talks March of this year to build a plant to convert dry to liquids gas at Brownsville. Of course since then China has hit its own economic snag

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on July 23, 2015 at 14:11

We may have some Chinese GHS members.

http://www.gohaynesvilleshale.com/profile/zhengqilu?xg_source=msg_m...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by kittycatmama on July 24, 2015 at 3:03

Great. I am really interested in the Brownsville operation as I have 100 ac. of minerals in dry gas area of Eagleford.  Of course as soon as the Chinese expressed an interest in building this facility the environmental protests started tying to scare the locals into thinking there could be gas spills, chemical leaks etc.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on July 24, 2015 at 6:21

Begin the Sabine-Natural Gas Supply and Long-Haul Deliveries to the New LNG Terminal

RBN ENERGY LLC

Excerpt:

The start-up of Sabine Pass, the first liquefied natural gas (LNG ) export terminal in the Lower 48 , is only months away, and the complicated gas-delivery logistics behind the project are coming into focus. Surely one of the biggest challenges has been assembling the long-haul pipeline capacity needed to move several billion cubic feet of gas a day (Bcf/d) to Sabine Pass from deliberately diverse sources as far away as the Marcellus/Utica. After all, the nation's pipeline network was initially designed to move gas from the Gulf Coast to the Northeast and Midwest, not vice versa. In today's blog, "Begin the Sabine-Natural Gas Supply and Long-Haul Deliveries to the...," Housley Carr continues our look at the challenges of securing and moving huge volumes of gas to LNG export terminals, the emerging epicenters of U.S. gas demand.

At least two anchor shippers on the Rover project have committed to supply significant amounts of Marcellus/Utica gas to Sabine Pass: Antero Resources will provide 200 MMcf/d at CME/NYMEX – Henry Hub, LA based pricing when the liquefaction/export facility starts up, and Range Resources will provide an unspecified (but surely major) amount of gas to Sabine Pass for five years starting in 2017. Since we’re on the subject of gas supply, Cheniere said in a July 10 (2015) presentation that so far it’s entered into term gas supply contracts with producers for about half of the required daily load of Sabine Pass trains 1 through 4 at prices averaging a 10 cents/MMBtu discount to Henry Hub. (The contracts have terms of one to seven years.) Figure 3 shows a train-by-train breakdown of the gas supply lined up as of April (in dekatherms/day where 1MMDth/d = ~ 1 Bcf/d)

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Timothy Stepnowsky on July 26, 2015 at 5:10

Does anyone have readily available, to post, the daily GLOBAL usage of crude, nat gas, and coal.  And also the daily global output of crude, nat gas, and coal?  Any form will work, charts, raw numbers.

Its important to keep in perspective the average daily usage, and also the last 4-6 years movement away from coal, and more into natural gas.  these are multi-decade trends, and sometimes difficult to keep in perspective during all the 'economic noise' that seems to 'always' be in the press these days.

thanks for posting............

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on July 26, 2015 at 5:13

http://www.iea.org/

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Timothy Stepnowsky on July 27, 2015 at 3:54

thanks, but it s a pay cite, just looking for the raw numbers.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on July 27, 2015 at 3:56

IEA is not a pay site. 

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page